What if Studio Ghibli directed Lord of the Rings?

[Theory of Games]

AI is getting really good at being the villain. Just in time for the creation of SkyNet

 

[Bohandas]

When I watched the clip, it seemed that Miyazaki was talking about something that was a) creepy, and b) a CGI attempt to have a computer "draw like a human", and that he opined that the creepy part was fine, but the "making a machine that can draw pictures like humans do" was his issue.

That's because he has a vested monetary interest in the creative process not being cheaply automated. His opinion is inherently biased and should be ignored.

Part of it may also come from superstition; there was a longstanding superstition, rooted in a combination of vanity and the pseudoscientific worldview of vitalism, that there are some things that only humans can do, and making art was at the top of the list. Seeing this belief destroyed in such a public and concrete way creates a feeling of cognitive dissonance in the people that held it which makes them very uncomfortable.

 

[Bohandas]

Please don't do this again.

One of my personal pet peeves is that it's so difficult to have an actual conversation about AI art that critiques the art because ~80% of the comments in every thread is just people grandstanding about AI, making it difficult to actually discuss the product. If you want to choose the alternative of derailing this thread into yet another "What Would J.R.R. Tolkien Do?" thread instead of discussing the art in the OP, I can't stop you; many threads have ended that way before, and many will again. But I am going to insist that you do it with your own thoughts and opinions, rather than inventing a (inaccurate) fantasy version of me.

The trailer is perfect. I love it.

 

[Bohandas]

AI is getting really good at being the villain. Just in time for the creation of SkyNet

What is villainous about this? Because it threatens some movie studio's profits? Because it puts art into the hands of common people who don't have an excess of time or an excess of money?

EDIT:
Because it makes it harder for the people who do have the time to learn art to sell out?

 

[Older Beholder]

That's because he has a vested monetary interest in the creative process not being cheaply automated. His opinion is inherently biased and should be ignored.

Part of it may also come from superstition; there was a longstanding superstition, rooted in a combination of vanity and the pseudoscientific worldview of vitalism, that there are some things that only humans can do, and making art was at the top of the list. Seeing this belief destroyed in such a public and concrete way creates a feeling of cognitive dissonance in the people that held it which makes them very uncomfortable.

Firstly, he's retired (again), so I'm not sure how vested his interests are.
If anything, Studio Ghibli could save money if they used AI.
I don't think being a renowned artist makes him biased, personally, I think being an expert in his field would mean he has a greater understanding of the issues.

I've never heard the theory that only humans can make art, at least not from anyone I know that was an actual artist. I'm pretty sure we were looking at elephants making art in art theory in the 90's. That monkey who took a selfie was considered by law to be the author of the work. Holding copyright was the thing that only humans can do in that case.

What is villainous about this? Because it threatens some movie studio's profits? Because it puts art into the hands of common people who don't have an excess of time or an excess of money?

EDIT:
Because it makes it harder for the people who do have the time to learn art to sell out?

Villainous in that it's theft.
As to the claim that AI puts art in the hands of common people who don't have excess money... Pencils are still cheaper than computers.

Would you mind unpacking that last Edit note, how does AI make it harder for artists to sell out?
What does selling out even mean in this context?

 

[Bohandas]

As to the claim that AI puts art in the hands of common people who don't have excess money... Pencils are still cheaper than computers.

Hence the statement that you either need a lot of money or a lot of time. I don't have time to learn to draw artist quality! I work two jobs and have a bunch of other hobbies!

 

[Bohandas]

Would you mind unpacking that last Edit note, how does AI make it harder for artists to sell out?

Well it's capable of doing most of the corporate "mindless drudge, draw what I tell you to draw" type artist jobs, as well as cheaply creating any obvious hackneyed low hanging fruit type works.

You can argue about whether it's not a true "artist", but it can do the work of a hack as well as the best of them

Villainous in that it's theft.

1. Copyright infringement is not theft. The essence of theft is in taking a thing away from someone. There is NO negative moral implication whatsoever to the simple act of acquiring something for free as long as everyone who had it before still has it.
2. It's very debatable whether any actual copyright infringement has actually occurred (it probably hasn't as this ticks multiple boxes for fair use)
3. Even if there had been actual theft, even if Open AI had sent people with ski masks and AK-47s to knock over a bunch of Barnes & Noble stores that wouldn't inpugn the actual technology, only the people involved in the thefts

(EDIT: That would be a great concept for an adventure, superhero, and/or spy movie set in pre-internet times though. Some mad scientist robs a bunch of book stores and libraries to build something like this pre-internet)

 

[Clint_L]

Is there a tl,dr of that?

Fanfic stuff looks like fanfic stuff.

 

[Mistwell]

1. Copyright infringement is not theft. The essence of theft is in taking a thing away from someone. There is NO negative moral implication whatsoever to the simple act of acquiring something for free as long as everyone who had it before still has it.
2. It's very debatable whether any actual copyright infringement has actually occurred (it probably hasn't as this ticks multiple boxes for fair use)
3. Even if there had been actual theft, even if Open AI had sent people with ski masks and AK-47s to knock over a bunch of Barnes & Noble stores that wouldn't inpugn the actual technology, only the people involved in the thefts

(EDIT: That would be a great concept for an adventure, superhero, and/or spy movie set in pre-internet times though. Some mad scientist robs a bunch of book stores and libraries to build something like this pre-internet)

If you sell the art created using someone else's art without their consent, it has a negative moral implication as you are making money off the labor of someone else and they receive no compensation for your sale. It's also not fair use if you're selling it for a purpose that isn't educational or news oriented. Finally, if you sell something that was stolen, you do have culpability. So none of your analysis works if you sell it.

 

[Bohandas]

If you sell the art created using someone else's art without their consent

No. They still have the original art and the product of their labor. They've lost nothing. Everything they had before remains untouched and unaltered. They still have everything that they had and everything that they're entitled to.

Even in the case of a person stiffing someone that they've comissioned the immorality lies in having made a fraudulent promise and not in taking a copy of the work

Finally, if you sell something that was stolen, you do have culpability. So none of your analysis works if you sell it.

Part of my point in point three was that in that scenario everything that in that scenario everything that was taken could be recovered by the police and returned and the AI would still remain regardless. The immoral part of the act could be undone in its entirety and still leave the AI